Re:Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citi...
by a11595 on Friday December 21, 2018 @07:46PM
(#18738081)
waaat...
1. Marriage exists because it's a religious ceremony in pretty much every religion since man started talking.
2. The government got involved and provides a non-religious marriage.
3. this has nothing to do with religion
4. government marriage was defined and commonly understood to be a partnership between a man and a woman. this needed to be redefined, as any government thing does.
?? you are completely wrong
6. Profit for me. My taxes are a lot less after I got married (wife makes less), and will be even higher discounted if we have kids.
Getting married is not speech - it's a government status with limitations and rules, which needed to be updated and did. Getting married religiously is protected speech, and no one ever prevented anyone from doing that - man+man or man+dog. we had civil unions, and most had the same rights as marriage, for gay people. they didn't like that and redefined a dictionary and legal meaning of a word. who cares. let's redefine straight as inclusive of gay also just like a woman can now be born w/ a dick. I personally don't care. crazies do crazy stuff - effects me zero - I know my language and my world.
the truth, dear sir, is exactly opposite of what who wrote.
1. Marriage exists because it's a religious ceremony in pretty much every religion since man started talking.
2. The government got involved and provides a non-religious marriage.
3. this has nothing to do with religion
4. government marriage was defined and commonly understood to be a partnership between a man and a woman. this needed to be redefined, as any government thing does.
?? you are completely wrong 6. Profit for me. My taxes are a lot less after I got married (wife makes less), and will be even higher discounted if we have kids.
Getting married is not speech - it's a government status with limitations and rules, which needed to be updated and did. Getting married religiously is protected speech, and no one ever prevented anyone from doing that - man+man or man+dog. we had civil unions, and most had the same rights as marriage, for gay people. they didn't like that and redefined a dictionary and legal meaning of a word. who cares. let's redefine straight as inclusive of gay also just like a woman can now be born w/ a dick. I personally don't care. crazies do crazy stuff - effects me zero - I know my language and my world.
the truth, dear sir, is exactly opposite of what who wrote.